Top Law Schools

Anybody got any specific tips on eliminating wrong answers. More than just "stick to the core". Do you do it from the start of the section? Or only when you find you can't prephrase the answer. I'm thinkin about just doin all my lr problems through elimination right now just so I can get more comfortable Even though I used POE at times, I don't think I've used it as much as I should. I'm a stubborn hard headed person who tends to try to find a lot of my answers just because it feels natural, but I'm hitting that wall where it's obvious that in order to get better I have to have elimination skills that are better than they currently are.

ltowns1 wrote:Anybody got any specific tips on eliminating wrong answers. More than just "stick to the core". Do you do it from the start of the section? Or only when you find you can't prephrase the answer. I'm thinkin about just doin all my lr problems through elimination right now just so I can get more comfortable Even though I used POE at times, I don't think I've used it as much as I should. I'm a stubborn hard headed person who tends to try to find a lot of my answers just because it feels natural, but I'm hitting that wall where it's obvious that in order to get better I have to have elimination skills that are better than they currently are.

This is a really self-aware and perceptive post; I think you are thinking about it in the right way. It's a pretty broad topic, so I'll post a few things that come to mind. Feel free to follow up with more specific elimination strategy questions that come up in our prep in the Blueprint Extravaganza thread.

Elimination skills are so crucial to mastering LR, particularly with the more difficult questions. Some things that I think really help are 1) focusing on the conclusion in argument based questions and 2) getting used to the types of attractive wrong answer choices the LSAC loves to use.

As to 1), if you are in a question that depends on your ability to spot and work with flawed reasoning, then you have to focus on the conclusion and keep it firmly in mind as you are going through the answer choices. If an answer choice has no impact on the conclusion (and particularly the relationship between the support/conclusion) then it cannot strengthen/weaken/be sufficient, etc. This is a really helpful thing to keep in mind when looking to eliminate. In most of these questions, you are going to get an answer choice that seems to really do damage or support a premise, but that doesn't affect the conclusion in any way.

A super simple example I use in class: "Danny DeVito and LeBron are going to play b-ball. LeBron is better at b-ball. Thus, LeBron will win." The flaw is equivocation: being better =/= will win. A common trap is something like: (A) LeBron is 57.65 times better at basketball. This would make me eliminate immediately because although it does strengthen LeBron being better, it doesn't help his better basketball skills leading to his victory. It's still the same flaw. I would be able to eliminate by focusing on the conclusion and as soon as I saw (A) I would kill it instantly.

As to 2), this is one that you'll get with a lot of practice and develop a sense of intuition about it. They use the same kind of traps over and over. One quick example is using an inappropriate level of logical force when the stimulus doesn't warrant it. A super easy example would be a must be true question where one of the facts in the stimulus is "Smurfette ate hundreds of pounds of chewing tobacco many days this month." Many is handled on the LSAT like some (technically it means 2 or more, but only one question in LSAT history relies on that distinction; you can almost always handle it as "one or more"). A common trap would be: "(B) Smurfette ate tobacco most days this month." The logical force of (B) is not warranted by the premise, even though it is attractive because in some context many=most (although not necessarily, this is what the test-makers are preying upon).

Beyond those two simple examples, the best elimination strategy is a solid prediction. When you come into a question with a perfect prediction, then it's much easier to knock out the traps. So, both the elimination skills (which good for you for thinking about and being intentional about and practicing in your prep) and the prediction skill are most often two sides of the same coin.

HTH and Good luck!

Thanks so much for you detailed answer. A lot of the things you pointed out I already knew, but it's always good to get a reminder, I think a part of my problem is I get sooooo locked down into trying to focus on the argument core systematicllay that I lose track of my main task which is ultimately to impact the conclusion ( and I tend to be a single minded person lol). For example, I rem. when I was first starting my prep, (which has been a while) I had major problems in LR because my mind felt like it was doing too much at one time. So I finally said bump it lol..I'm going to solely focus on the conclusion, and I did that for one test, and I eliminated answers. I ended getting about seven wrong, which for me at the time was great, of course I knew this was prob. not the best way to handle LR so i eventually learned how to do it the proper way, which of course is to focus on the core of the argument, ever since then it's been...meh ..some good and some bad. I'm at the point now where I need to make some solid improvements as I'm preparing to take the October test. Anyway thanks for your advice, and I welcome more from anyone else!

ltowns1 wrote:Thanks so much for you detailed answer. A lot of the things you pointed out I already knew, but it's always good to get a reminder, I think a part of my problem is I get sooooo locked down into trying to focus on the argument core systematicllay that I lose track of my main task which is ultimately to impact the conclusion ( and I tend to be a single minded person lol). For example, I rem. when I was first starting my prep, (which has been a while) I had major problems in LR because my mind felt like it was doing too much at one time. So I finally said bump it lol..I'm going to solely focus on the conclusion, and I did that for one test, and I eliminated answers. I ended getting about seven wrong, which for me at the time was great, of course I knew this was prob. not the best way to handle LR so i eventually learned how to do it the proper way, which of course is to focus on the core of the argument, ever since then it's been...meh ..some good and some bad. I'm at the point now where I need to make some solid improvements as I'm preparing to take the October test. Anyway thanks for your advice, and I welcome more from anyone else!

You are welcome. Yeah those were pretty general examples, but it's always good to review and hopefully others will get something out of them.

What do you mean by argument core? I'm unfamiliar with that term.

It's definitely not a good idea to get a "one track mind" on the LSAT, as you are discovering. It's a skills based exam, so the key is being able to transfer skills that you develop to novel situations that you've never seen before.

That being said, one thing I do with my students is for each question type give them a list of steps for each problem to help focus them on just a few tasks. It does make sense to focus on solving steps rather than just one step only, if that makes sense. For example:

Must be true
1. Read prompt; you're told the stimulus will be true and that you need 100% certainty
2. Read stimulus--don't waste time fighting with the speaker, just understand what you can know for sure from the facts
3. Decide whether or not this is a diagramming situation (A-->B etc.) or if you just need to summarize the facts in your mind as you read
4. If diagramming, then anticipate finding an answer choice that either links up different conditional statements into longer chains, and get the contrapositives ready, since they are often TCR. If not diagramming, as you summarize the facts in your mind, look for claims that go together or have some interlocking topical relationship; anticipate something that brings facts together. Anticipate answers that deal with those portions that bring things together.
5. Go to the answer choices looking for your prediction (especially if diagramming). Look to eliminate based on logical force or common diagramming fallacies.

Thinking through the question types in this way really helps keep on point but still flexible as the situation demands. You should really be able to talk through this from memory for each question type so by the time test day comes you can just go rather than worry about strategy, etc.

Good luck, and please post in the Blueprint Extravaganza thread if there are any ACs that you can't seem to eliminate.

HTH

BlueprintJason wrote:

ltowns1 wrote:Thanks so much for you detailed answer. A lot of the things you pointed out I already knew, but it's always good to get a reminder, I think a part of my problem is I get sooooo locked down into trying to focus on the argument core systematicllay that I lose track of my main task which is ultimately to impact the conclusion ( and I tend to be a single minded person lol). For example, I rem. when I was first starting my prep, (which has been a while) I had major problems in LR because my mind felt like it was doing too much at one time. So I finally said bump it lol..I'm going to solely focus on the conclusion, and I did that for one test, and I eliminated answers. I ended getting about seven wrong, which for me at the time was great, of course I knew this was prob. not the best way to handle LR so i eventually learned how to do it the proper way, which of course is to focus on the core of the argument, ever since then it's been...meh ..some good and some bad. I'm at the point now where I need to make some solid improvements as I'm preparing to take the October test. Anyway thanks for your advice, and I welcome more from anyone else!

You are welcome. Yeah those were pretty general examples, but it's always good to review and hopefully others will get something out of them.

What do you mean by argument core? I'm unfamiliar with that term.

It's definitely not a good idea to get a "one track mind" on the LSAT, as you are discovering. It's a skills based exam, so the key is being able to transfer skills that you develop to novel situations that you've never seen before.

That being said, one thing I do with my students is for each question type give them a list of steps for each problem to help focus them on just a few tasks. It does make sense to focus on solving steps rather than just one step only, if that makes sense. For example:

Must be true
1. Read prompt; you're told the stimulus will be true and that you need 100% certainty
2. Read stimulus--don't waste time fighting with the speaker, just understand what you can know for sure from the facts
3. Decide whether or not this is a diagramming situation (A-->B etc.) or if you just need to summarize the facts in your mind as you read
4. If diagramming, then anticipate finding an answer choice that either links up different conditional statements into longer chains, and get the contrapositives ready, since they are often TCR. If not diagramming, as you summarize the facts in your mind, look for claims that go together or have some interlocking topical relationship; anticipate something that brings facts together. Anticipate answers that deal with those portions that bring things together.
5. Go to the answer choices looking for your prediction (especially if diagramming). Look to eliminate based on logical force or common diagramming fallacies.

Thinking through the question types in this way really helps keep on point but still flexible as the situation demands. You should really be able to talk through this from memory for each question type so by the time test day comes you can just go rather than worry about strategy, etc.

Good luck, and please post in the Blueprint Extravaganza thread if there are any ACs that you can't seem to eliminate.

HTH

Oh yeah sorry. I forget you prep course folks have different terms/strategies. I use Manhattan book which is where I get the term "argument core". It's just a word for essentially taking the conclusion and finding the relevant evidence. It's been very helpful, but I need to combine this strategy with eliminating as well.

ltowns1 wrote: Oh yeah sorry. I forget you prep course folks have different terms/strategies. I use Manhattan book which is where I get the term "argument core". It's just a word for essentially taking the conclusion and finding the relevant evidence. It's been very helpful, but I need to combine this strategy with eliminating as well.

I see. Thanks for explaining! I don't think we give it a term, but yeah, in any argument-based question the link between the support and conclusion is definitely the key, since that is where the flaw will lie. Good luck prepping ltowns1!

BlueprintJason wrote:

ltowns1 wrote: Oh yeah sorry. I forget you prep course folks have different terms/strategies. I use Manhattan book which is where I get the term "argument core". It's just a word for essentially taking the conclusion and finding the relevant evidence. It's been very helpful, but I need to combine this strategy with eliminating as well.

I see. Thanks for explaining! I don't think we give it a term, but yeah, in any argument-based question the link between the support and conclusion is definitely the key, since that is where the flaw will lie. Good luck prepping ltowns1!

Thanks for your advice